Engineer, environmentalist, and entrepreneur Saul Griffith examines the numerical reality of the fight against climate change.

Drawing from a personal assessment of his own energy needs, Griffith argues that we not only need to switch to alternative energies, we also need to drastically reduce their consumption in order to prevent a global catastrophe.

Stewart Brand

Stewart Brand is co-founder and president of The Long Now Foundation and co-founder of Global Business Network. He created and edited the Whole Earth Catalog (National Book Award), and co-founded the Hackers Conference and The WELL. His books include The Clock of the Long Now; How Buildings Learn; and The Media Lab. His most recent book, titled Whole Earth Discipline, is published by Viking in the US and Atlantic in the UK.

Saul Griffith

Dr. Saul Griffith has multiple degrees in materials science and mechanical engineering and completed his PhD in Programmable Assembly and Self Replicating machines at MIT.

He is the co-founder of numerous companies including: Low Cost Eyeglasses, Squid Labs, Potenco, Instructables.com, "HowToons" and Makani Power. Griffith has been awarded numerous awards for invention including the National Inventors Hall of Fame, Collegiate Inventor's award, and the Lemelson-MIT Student prize. A large focus of Griffith's research efforts are in minimum and constrained energy surfaces for novel manufacturing techniques and other applications. Griffith holds multiple patents and patents pending in textiles, optics, nanotechnology, and energy production.

Griffith co-authors children's comic books called "HowToons" about building your own science and engineering gadgets with Nick Dragotta and Joost Bonsen. Griffith is a technical advisor to Make magazine and Popular Mechanics. Griffith is a columnist and contributor to Make and Craft magazines.

Good evening. How are we for signal, very good, I am Stewart Brand from the Long NowFoundation. You maybe wonder what this Twitter thing is about. This data, it turns out is helpfulhelpful for funders of Long Now and of these talks. They could find out what the sort of watershedof people that feeds into this of event is. How many people have been the one of these before?How many have not been the one of these before? Well thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s interesting. The drill on thesethings is, this is for questions and the back put your name on it and look for somebody in theyellow hat like mine pass it over to them it comes up with the friend Kevin Kelly combs throughfor the stuff that will really embarrass the speaker and I will get him with it. Another thing wemay do with these datas as we move from venue to venue we find out who is well served bypublic transit things like that. WeÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢d like eventually to get a bigger place obviously and a placethat we can count on being all the times so this data helps us move in the direction of being ableto handle more of an audience with more regularity and more access for everybody so thanks foryour help on that.I should say who about the next speaker, since not everybody knows who Dmitry Orlov is, he isthe sketch. He is a close student of how collapse went forward in the Soviet Union 20 years agoand notices interesting parallels going onto the US. You all stuck with the financial collapseclimate change may figure into it by the time these things play out and one of his points is thatthe Soviet Union screwed up with it is was actually better collapse probably than we are. So wecan learn something from their experience and move right on through the collapse and do rebirth.This is the long term of thinking we tried to encourage in this organization.Saul Griffith who is also talking about long term stuff, the weird thing about climate is that itslife times and its lead times and so much longer within quarterly report or an election cycle or anews cycle. They were still getting use the thing in terms of what one has to do to makesomething happen 40 years from now and failing to do that are you willing to live with theconsequences 40, 30, 20, 10 years from now. Now Saul is a MacArthur Fellow, he got namedlast year, 2007, last year and one and MacArthur Fellows, itÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s a lot of money which was great, solot of attention which is useful because it gets usually young, creative people a bigger audienceand little more focus and also they connect with each other and so the fellows are in the sense oflifetime club they extremely creative people who infect and infest each other, which then givesthem more to infect and infest us with thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s what Saul Griffith is here for tonight. Here he is.Thank you Stewart, so I am super excited because this is the first time IÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ve ever sold at a house Ithink. So I hope they with, and I hope desperately to neither infect nor infest you tonight.Climate Change Recalculated is the topic of my talk tonight and I am not going to try and tellyou that everyoneÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s equations and all the science is wrong and if you recalculate it we going toget a great result. The recalculation I am talking about is the type of recalculation that will helpyou answer questions of this kind: do you prefer glass of wine every evening or do you prefer tohave an annual business trip. Would you prefer your taxes spent on schools or roads? Would youprefer a hot shower every day or would you like to eat meat at every evening meal.So they will turn out to be surprisingly relevant questions by the time we get to the end of the talk.So youÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ve obviously heard about climate change and thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s probably why you're here you have heardabout the concept of carbon footprints and you've certainly heard about energyindependence and we will hear more and more. But letÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s look at these things as though we aresort of reconciling the short term us, the us that are seating here in the audience with the 10,000future of us. So the 10,000 year of our childrenÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s childrenÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s children or something. Hopefullydoing that and so when the talk is called the climate change recalculated it should be maybe re-envisioned through a very personal view. Hopefully we will now answer two questions how doyour personal actions affect climate? And given that can there actually be a global solution forclimate change? Which is another way say you going to see a big pile of numbers to show youthat climate change and energy issues are actually really aesthetic issues, itÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s really a question ofwhat is a quality life and what is the life that we all sort of want to live.So, youÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢re going to see two stories tonight, the global big picture how much of all the differenttypes of energy are there, how can you use them, which ones are good, which ones are not sogood. But to set the context for that, I use to just give the talk exclusively about that very bigcold picture of the planet as a physicist would say it and people would say thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s a very coldpicture that a physicist paints and so I put myself in the picture and so youÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ll learn more aboutmy personal life today than you probably want to know. And why? ItÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s because probably about18 months ago in order to sort of understand my context in this picture I decided to ask thisquestion: how much power do I use as an individual?So, super basics physics: energy is measured in joules if I were to lift an apple or this cup ofwater from the ground to the podium that takes about one joule of energy. If power is theamount of energy you use in a period of time, so if I lift that, if it takes me one second thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢sabout one watt of power to lift that glass to the table. If I lift 40 apples per second from theground to the table you can imagine thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s quite a lot of effort thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s about 40 watts and thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢sabout the amount of power thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s driving the computer thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s running this presentation.So, these numbers are going to, yeah lot of you probably know this for those donÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t know I amjust trying to give you some intuition for the lots of numbers that are going to come afterwards.So here sort of some order of magnitude of the power certain things. So, the bio-energy thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢srunning you while you are sitting there in your chair or if you are standing more likely is about a100 watts. Takes about a kilowatt or a 1000 watts to boil the water in your kettle. ItÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s about amegawatt is if you have seen a very large diesel locomotive or very large wind turbine thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢sabout a megawatt or million watts. It gets very hard to imagine power of larger sizes than that,so maybe you stood the edge of Hoover Dam and youÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ve been awed by the power of the waterthatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s about a gigawatt in fact thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s two gigawatts of power and a terawatt which is 10 to the 12watts was about how much power the world use in 1890. Hard to imagine a terawatt itÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s alsoabout how much power you need to launch the space shuttle but that only lasts for few seconds.If you are still struggling for an intuition about power I am going to tell you about my lifestyleand you can imagine my lifestyle and consequently your own in terms of the number of lightbulbs that are burning at any instant when you are talking normally I stand in front of the slideshere I know it wasnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t meant to walk out of the light and IÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢d like to stand here and say thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s notthe glow of genius you see that is the number of light bulbs that takes to power on my lifestyle.So, why watt? Why would you use power as a unit instead of energy? Because we hear about anenergy problem, so why watts? The couple of good things about watts, watts allow you tocompare activities you do on different times scales so you can compare the things that you doyearly like flying a certain number of miles to then things you do monthly like paying yourelectricity bill, to things you do daily like drink bottled water or energy drinks. You can merelyadd all those things together once youÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ve got a watt value for all them, add them all up and thatgives you the sort of power of your lifestyle. It also allows you to consider the non-carbon basedeffects of using so much energy or so much power and will get to that later in the talk.So, as you can see I own my own airline this is the route map that it will fly you and in 2007 Iflew 112,000 miles, if we assume that every one of those flights was on a fully loaded 747operating as well as they can thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s about 18,000 watts of power. So thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s 8,000 watts allthrough the year is the equivalent of that. In terms of driving I drove about 10,000 miles in 2007that was the equivalent of driving around the US on this route. In reality it was really justdriving to the store or to work the first 4Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â½ thousand miles were driving from San Francisco toNew York via Atlanta in a Honda Inside a hybrid 55 miles per gallon jumped in a cab from NewYork to Boston rented a car you know one of the big rental cars from Boston to Key West up toJacksonville in a van a diesel van the only safe way obviously to go across the southwest is in atruck.Once I got to Tucson I jumped in my Vintage 1959 Volkswagen Dune Buggy and enjoyedHighway 1 all the way to San Francisco. So, 10,000 miles is less--the average American drives15,000 miles a year. And in reality all of the cars, the majority of the cars that I drove in aremuch more efficient than the average American car so I drove less miles in more efficient carsand it was still 1,500 watts, the average American that value could be 2Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â½ or 3,000 watts. I livein a small standalone house in the Mission and itÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s two bedrooms and I share it with my wife myhalf of the gas bill and the electricity bill in watts is about 625 watts. You can see here that I canbreak out the hot shower I have every day, the gas that we use for cooking I can even sort ofsingle out the electric toothbrush and the fridge and phone chargers just using the sort of wallmeasuring devices for power so 625 watts there.It turns out at my office nearly everyone runs four computers all the time 24 hours a day using411 watts of electricity each. as you can see in the winter months January, February, Decemberthey all leave their windows open and use their gas to heat it so that was about I think about 600watts if you divided out the power consumption of my company and divide that across everyone.I eat hopefully you all do. It turns out that that also consumes a lot of power. I am usingnumbers here that I taken from reviewed peer journals in fact throughout the whole talk ifanyone wants the reference list see me afterwards. I tend to believe actually that no one truly hasa handle on the energy consumption for eating yet but this would be the conservative estimate inconservative in one serious plan and then one funny way.The funny conservatism is that this is seems that I only drink two glasses of wine a night. Andthat that is equivalent 76 watts of power there is a funny guy he is quite a serious guy actually heruns a blog for wine aficionados called Dr. Vino he did a study of the carbon footprint or theenergy consumed to deliver of wine anywhere in the world turns out if you live on this side ofa line roughly between Chicago and New Orleans its more energetically favorable to drink winesfrom Sonoma County and if you live in New York you should drink French bordeaux.So, more reasons to live in New York like you needed them, so anyway maybe I shouldnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t saythat because I think local wines are much better than--I donÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t like the French anyway. So,obviously I eat more meat or I use to more meat and fish than I should and that is the majority ofthe power considered to my life and everyone is probably aware that to create a pound of meatyou have to feed it a lot of grain and so itÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s a pretty inefficient way to get your calories.Surprisingly though the numbers for farming transportation and fertilizers so the transportation ismoving that food around, the fertilizer is the energy in the synthetic fertilizers we use that isreally just assuming that those are the US wide national numbers for those three figures and Ihave just assumed a one 300 millionth share. Very likely I have probably a better diet or moreexpensive diet it must be on the country so this is almost certainly an under estimate.Speaking of taking one 300 millionth shares you pay taxes, your taxes get spent in all sorts ofdifferent ways so a number of government departments publish their use of fuel and electricityand if I took my one 300 millionth share of the US militaryÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s aviation gas and diesel bill thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢sabout 94 watts to keep all the silos warm thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s about 50 watts. The US government just to runall these buildings about 18 watts and your one 300 millionth share of NASA is 1 watt of power.Hopefully there are some NASA people here, I would happily give them more of my watts. Getus out of here.And then the US postal service use a little, this does not take into account all of the energy thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢sembodied in the roads in the actual steel that makes the time etc, etc and will come that later. Ialso own an awful lot of stuff you can now see everything that I own. And so this comes to theissue of embodied energy so any item you own weighs something that itÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s made out of a materialwe know how much energy had takes to make those materials if you do very conservativeassumptions for all of your objects you can figure out and you know how long those objects lastyou can figure out how much power they use. I own 11 bicycles so that little bicycle thing is notone but 11 but because my bicycles last 20 years and bicycles donÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t weigh very much itÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s not avery big piece of my pie. You can see the cars my Honda, my wifeÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s Honda Insight that I sort ofshare and then a vintage Toyota Pickup and a very vintage Volkswagen thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s the red section.Surprisingly, if you look at this and you think okay if I was to reduce the energy use of my lifewhere should come from you go after the big pieces. You find interesting things so very bigobjects that weigh a lot even if they last a long time use lot of energy so your house your carsyour boats the other unusual things for me are things that you get very regularly like thenewspaper or detergent or washing powder or toothpaste, because you just get them regularlythatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s quite a large portion of your power. And then the green section at the bottom is myfurniture I think yellow is toothpaste, detergent, washing powder.The purple section you should be thankful for because that means I am not standing before younaked thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s all my belts and shoes and clothes and the purple section I canÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t remember I amsorry. The difference between this slide and this slide is that Kirk von Rohr, a designer who ishopefully sitting in the audience did this slide and I did this slide. Kirk is amazing if you everhave an opportunity to with Kirk von Rohr you should so this is actually my entire life. So17,000 watts youÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ll notice later in the talk that actually my new estimate is 18,000 watts itÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢sbecause you keep forgetting that you do things that use power.That big blue, green area are in the top right hand corner is your tax dollars at work and part ofthat goes in all of the energy that you saw previously for the diesel etc but lot of it is in unusualthings like for example, if you did conservative assumptions of how much energy is embodied inall of the road infrastructure in the United States and you divide it by everyone and you assumethat will roads will last 40 years the embodied energy in the road infrastructure is about 330watts or 2% or 3% of the average AmericanÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s power consumption. Obviously the biggest--everything on the left hand side is basically my flying you can see my driving there so I wonÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢tbeat this to death but you can--and it is in fact possible to understand how all of your energy isused.So that was just me, this is me and my lady friend, you probably went to a high school withabout 1000 people the same way I did you can imagine the 1000 people you live in a city orderof magnitude a million people you can sort of imagine a million people you have no chance ofimagining a billion people and thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s a really long and awkward segue into the demographics ofenergy use. So you would say Saul you used 18,000 watts is that a lot or a little? So you canactually use gross national data to get a per-capita power consumption by country for everycountry in the world. United States typically likes to think itÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s number one in anything ateverything unfortunately its number ten behind Canada which are Americans who livesomewhere colder.I think I manage to offend 90% of the audience in one sentence I am quite proud of that. Andthen so there are some unusual things you know in Kuwait and Bahrain and Qatar, they basicallyburn oil to do air-conditioning all the time so those people to pretty high. Australia thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s myaccent thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s in 15th place so you can sort of get a sense of the numbers of different countries andthen the green line that IÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ve put in there is the global average 2,200 watts is the per-capita globalaverage. We might come back to this slide later but, so, the 18,000 watts I use really shocked meI thought I am a bicycle commuting guy who runs renewable energy company in hippie SanFrancisco I must be better than the average American, turns out I use about twice as much poweras the average American.So it was a little surprising and doing this process is incredibly illuminating for you. You canlook at the historical increase in power consumption by country this is one of my graphics notKirkÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s. And I tried to put the maps in my last this is interesting a sort of yeah you know IcouldnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t get all the little tiny ones. But, so America is increasing but not that rapidly comparedto things like China and Russia which you can see up there and India. One of the mostinteresting things about this graphic is the big discontinuity in around, you know just before 1990and that is the Soviet Union changing into lots of smaller countries. So this may be interestingpolitically.How did the world make all of its energy and use it grossly in 2007 these are international energyagency numbers the majority of it was in producing electricity you can breakdown how we madethat electricity by fuel type and you can see the scale there. Transportation was nearly all oil thatwas in second place you can sort of change these buckets around to mean different things but itsort of gives you a pretty good gross sense of how we use energy globally. So whatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s the resultof using all of that energy? It has lead to this problem this graph has been made by people whocan fill every audience that they speak to and its going up so this is this the CO2 concentration asmeasured in Mauna Loa, a mountain top in Hawaii, and you can see the seasonal variation andyou can see weÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢re now so I think at the last date appoint I have is 2003. I think we are now up toabout 387 parts per million.So youÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢d say well who put all that carbon into to the atmosphere I find this a particularlyinteresting aspect of the demographics. So you can sum the cumulative CO2 emissions fromfossil fuel burning for every country in the world for all those that have kept statistics and it tellsyou this: of all of the carbon thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s in the atmosphere 90 giga metric tonnes or billion metrictonnes of that was United States so happily they are at number one position again. In numbertwo is Russia, number three is China, number four is Germany you have to do some pretty weirdpolitical remapping of the data because Germany changed hands so many times in the 200 yeardata set etc, etc. But basically the first six or seven countries they have produced 90% to 95% ofthe carbon in the atmosphere.So, in terms of who is responsible for solving this problem the evidence is fairly damning and IdonÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t think it leave you any choice but to figure who should act first and fastest. So, letÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s thinkabout all the carbon this is the very, very cartoony look at where all the carbon in the world is.There is around about 700 giga tonnes of carbon in the atmosphere. We put another 8 gigatonnes of carbon this is not carbon dioxide but carbon if you want carbon dioxide numbers justmultiply everything by 4.4. We put 8 billion tonnes of carbon in the atmosphere every year theoceans reabsorbs about 2 billion tonnes of that. We know how much carbon is in all the soils inthe words thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s about 3,000 billion tonnes there is 40,000 billion tonnes of carbon remaining inthe oceans. Both of those numbers are reassuring because there is so much there, there is achance that we can take some of the carbon in the atmosphere and actually drive it back there.The scariest number on this graph is that the amount of carbon left in vegetation that hasnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t beenburnt yet is equal to the amount of the atmosphere so we shouldnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t burn too much of that and thefact that there is still 1,600 giga tonnes of carbon in the ground.Of the carbon that we burn is the atmosphere around about 55% seems to stay and linger thereand thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s why you donÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t sort of get 8 minus 2 is 6 going with the atmosphere you sort ofratcheting up by a couple of billion tonnes per year right now. Those carbon flows have resultedin this problem, this is the best graphic I have seen to very visually represent the temperaturerises globally over the past 25 years so for every large red dot this is actually from the SternReport in England. Every large red dot represents a one degree Celsius temperature raise perdecade for the last 25 years. So thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s maybe 6 or 7 degree Fahrenheit in the last quarter of thecentury for every large red dot you see there, so be a little frightened.All right, so here is my fantastic great question that I think we all really need to answer foryourselves really quickly, what temperature are we going to choose as the target for humanitythis gets to the question of the statistics what type of life to we want to live on this planet that wehave. So is it really terrible slide to try and if you could tell give you a way that you might thinkabout how to answer the question of what temperature. So, there are climate models into thoseclimate models are based on physics etc, we can actually they are actually doing a very good jobof predicting the sort of matching historical data and predicting future data. With those modelswe can then come up with scenarios you've heard of scenarios, scenarios are where economistsand scientists sit down and say if the world does this, how much carbon will that produce you feedthat back into the climate model and it tells you what the atmosphere might stabilize at andafter people have done scenario models then there are impact studies.The impact studies are the climate signs to gets all the headlines the other thing is that say at 1Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â½degree Celsius that you can see on the left access here temperature we will loose 10% of allspecies. At 2Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â½ degree Celsius we will loose 15% to 40% of all species so 3 degrees abovewhere we are in 1990 is the base level, that 3 degrees above you will get 1 billion to 4 billionpeople facing water shortages you know 3Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â½ it just gets worse and worse and worse. They are allthe nightmare scenarios so basically you would probably like to say how far down you knowhow far up that list of nightmares do I wish to go before IÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ve said enough and a lot of theconsensus is being around about 2 degrees should be enough that will mean 100 million refugeescrossing borders I think the state department mobilizes troops if they hear of about 50,000 or100,000 people crossing borders as refugees so 100 million means a lot of little spot wars aroundthe world anyway so 2 degrees you know the other problem with 2 degrees is might reverse thethermohaline cycle which will disrupt the ocean's cooling mechanisms and throw Europe into anice age and everywhere else into hell.And so okay letÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s stop painting the horror picture letÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s say 2 degrees is where you want to getthe consensuses is if we hit a target of 450 parts per million youÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ve got about 30 percent chancestaying below two degrees. So you could argue that letÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s shoot for two degrees because 450sounds achievable and letÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s cross our fingers and hope that if we hit 450 it really is 2 degrees.But to give you an idea of how long IÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ve been giving this talk which is about a year the reallyencouraging thing to me is a year ago it was scandalous to say 450 parts per million because everyonelike that seem possible thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s too low their consensus was 550 but fortunately Jim Hanson hasbeen out Jim Hanson from NASA being AmericaÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s leading climate scientist and he has mangedto get into the public dialog with 350 parts per million is the correct answer.He has a much better way of arguing for 350 than I did in the last slide arguing for 450 he sayshumanity evolved you know world that had always less than 350, if you want to have any worldthat looks like what we evolved in letÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s stay below that I think thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s probably pretty wise words.Well letÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s go back to 450, and assume thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s what we are going for and we are going to accept 2degree temperature raise, what do you have to do? One way thinking about it is if kind of gotbalance this equation youÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ve got have about the same amount of carbon going into theatmosphere every year as this being sucked down into the oceans. This is still not a rosy picturebecause if you putting that carbon in the oceans you are increasing ocean acidity and that has badeffects on fisheries and coral and all the rest but still cross your fingers, this is a better picturethen just going off the charts.ThatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s not an entirely--again this is a Kirk slide this is a Saul slide--what IÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ve just presented toyou is not entirely an accurate picture because really weÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ve carbon dioxide going in theatmosphere its more about, its about how much carbon we can burn anymore right and so this issort of this actually a guy called Jeff Koomey did this work in the 80s, this is 20 years old thiswas a very simple model that is largely still valid for understanding what affects putting a billiontonnes of carbon into the atmosphere has on the parts per million concentration of CO2. So ifyou put a billion tonnes of carbon in the atmosphere you get about .26 increase in theatmospheric concentration or if you make one terawatt of power for one year using coal itincreases the parts per million by .2 for oil you can see it's .15 and gas is a better fossil fuel againat about .11. So we are at about 380 to 390, weÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ve got about 60 parts per million to go to get to450 that means youÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ve got about 400 terawatt years of fossil fuel burning.400 terawatt years is a measure of energy it just sounds like power what does that really meanthat means you have got about 40 years of 10 terawatts of fossil fuel burning or about 20 years or20 terawatts to stop at 450. All right, so I have now sort of tried to ask a question okay youknow if you have got to get the carbon going into the atmosphere down to one or two giga tonneshow much power could humanity get it turns out you know we have chosen two degrees we areshooting for 450 we understand where the equilibrium point will be you will only get two tothree terawatts of power from carbon fuels to drive humanity if you want to stabilize at 450 ifyou want to stabilize at 350 it looks like zero so it turns out that it doesnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t make a lot ofdifference anyway. So hopefully you are now asking yourself well how much power doeshumanity use it turns out we use quite a lot some people say we use 18 terawatts thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s becausethey count all of the plant matter in the world and its various uses agriculturally and in burningfor cooking etc if you ask the International Energy Agency that will say itÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s 15 or 16 terawattsbecause they pretty much count the more traditional fossil fuel sources I guess more recentlytraditional to be correct all right how do we use it this is how the world uses its power interawatts all right so thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s obviously not going to last a ten thousand years so I told you we canonly really burn two to three terawatts worth of fuel if we want to stabilize at 450 and have thatsort of aesthetic world and this is telling us we want 16 terawatts to power humanity.So thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s not going to last what are the other options so how can we produce this 16 terawatts ofpower for humanity without putting too much carbon into the atmosphere this is the only slidethat you need to remember in my talk this tells you this is basically the play book for humanityso in the top there we have 85,000 terawatts of sun coming in so thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s the amount of power insolar energy thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s hitting the surface of the earth at any instant you probably heard of numbersof 170,000 terawatts thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s what hits the outer atmosphere thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s the principle input we also get alittle bit input from space in the form of tidal energy from the moon so as the moon goes aroundthe earth and makes the ocean lift up and down thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s tidal energy the scary thing about that is ifwe built a 100% efficient tidal machine it would and we flattened all of the tide so they no longerwent up and down you would only be powering 1/5 of humanity today.So itÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s not going to scale similarly we have coastal waves if you put 100% efficient wavecollector around every coast line in the world you are only going to get about 1/5 or 1/6 ofhumanityÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s power supply so when someone submits you a business plan for wave power andsays wave power will save the world you say wave power might save some cities in NorthernCalifornia in the Bay of Fundy but it doesnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t scale to humanity. One of the sources of power thatdoes scale the humanity is wind power thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s the second largest after solar there is 3,600terawatts of wind thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s why I work on winds specifically high altitude wind we need to we needto figure out how to get at that. It turns out we know that the Hoover Dam is awfully powerfulyou might ask how many Hoover Dams are out there if you collected every rain drop as it hitevery continent on the world and you ran all of those droplets of water through the Hoover Damyou would only get 25 terawatts if you waited for all of that water to get into river you only get 7terawatts.Surprisingly you know we hear a lot about bio-fuels what happens if we took all of thephotosynthetic activity on the planet that means every mangrove every grass land every tree andwe burn them every year and let them re-grow you will only get about 90 terawatts of that 90only 65 is on land so to fully power the humanity with bio-fuels you would have to take onequarter of all the photosynthetic activity on the planet. There is some heat in the ocean youcould extract ocean thermal gradient you donÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t really want to screw with that as we are alreadyscrewing with the ocean currents there is also geo-thermal so geo-thermal is a hard one toexpress the renewable flux of geo-thermal is about 32 terawatt so thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s the natural rate thatcomes out of the earth you could extract that faster but you would be cooling the rocks fasterthan they replenish so that gives you the picture all right so what is the challenge humanity uses16 terawatts you know we can only get two letÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s be generous three terawatts of that from fossilfuels we have got about one terawatt of nuclear today and about half a terawatt of hydro so youget one and half there so the new clean energy we need to make in the next 25ish years is around16 minus 3 plus 1.5 so we need about 11 and half terawatts letÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s take a wild guess at how youmight do that and in order not to offend anyone in the audience, I'll just make it fairly equal. Wewill do two terawatts of that with photovoltaic two with solar thermal two with wind two withgeo-thermal three with nuclear and we will give half a terawatt to bio-fuels so that wouldactually be your 11 and half that sounds easy that sounds doable there is probably a lot ofengineers in the room you just wanted to say well how fast do I have to build it and what do Ihave to build its pretty easy to do two terawatts of photovoltaic in 25 years and letÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s assume theyare really good ones 15% efficiency thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s about a 100 square meters a second every second for25 years so thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s probably every five seconds you have got to cover this auditorium with solarcells that gives you two terawatts out of your 11 and half for solar thermal you can get 30%efficiency if they are well sited thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s where you take a mirror and you heat up a pool of wateror preferably a molten salt and then use that heat to drive generators steam or otherwise you needto install 50 square meters of mirrors every second for the next 25 years in terms of windturbines you need to build 12 three megawatt wind turbines every hour so a three megawatt windturbine is the largest wind turbine you have ever seen its about the size of this whole building indiameter it is about 100 meters in diameter.So basically the other way to express that is roughly one every five or six minutes to get yourthree terawatts of nuclear power this is to be ambivalent about the political aspects of that youneed to do one three gigawatt nuclear plant every week for the next 25 years I think the US has8 or 10 slated for approval in the next decade so we are just a little behind schedule but I am surewe will pick it up with the Obama administration. All right geo-thermal two terawatts of geo-thermal thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s basically three 100 megawatts steam turbines every day for the next 25 years so100 megawatt steam turbines probably the size of this room but it looks more like stainless steeland this is not counting the holes that you have to drill to do that.All right and just for kicks letÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s get our last half terawatt of bio-fuel so we can fly jets itÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s anOlympic swimming pool of genetically engineered algae thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s four times more efficient than thebest genetically engineered bio-fuel we have today so we are being a little ambitioustechnologically but I assume we get that and you need to fill one of those Olympic swimmingpools every second for the next 25 years then someone will say that cements really bad becausecement we know that cement produces a lot of carbon letÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s not use that so letÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s not makeswimming pools why donÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t we just fill in a natural land formation it turns out this would beWyoming I think so I didnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t mean to pick on any of the Wyoming people, I could've just as easilysaid New Zealand yeah all right so then you would say okay thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s pretty scary thosesound like really big numbers is that at all possible industrially or in another way to phrase thatis what should Detroit actually do all right well this is not really a Detroit question this is donÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ttell Coca-Cola but this is the killer business plan for the 21st century.So Americans drink 110 billion cans of soda every year aluminum cans if you cut all of thosealuminum cans in half and you flatten them out and you polish them as nicely as aluminum canyou made them into mirrors that represents 200 gigawatts of solar thermal capacity every year soCoca-Cola is going to return to its original business plan of selling you really concentratedpackets of sugar then they donÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t have to ship the aluminum around and they just going to taketheir reserve aluminum capacity and in 10 years Coke and Pepsi will make two terawatts of solarthermal thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s awesome problem solved. Nokia again I think when I first made this slide Nokiain fact only made 9 phones every second I think they got to 12 I suspect next year it will be not12 Nokia, Intel, AMD, Apple if you took all of them in their industrial plant they can probablydo thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s roughly the scale to do this sort of the photovoltaic required GM yeah slides are reallyout of date GM used to make one car every two minutes they used to make one transmissionevery one minute General Motors and Ford together you could argue may be will make one windturbine every five minutes so itÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s not impossible I think this a good example when we wereretooling for World War-II in the United States they made 300,000 aircrafts I think they aremaking one or 2000 a year up until 1939 in between 1939 and 1945 they made 300,000 aircrafts.So aircraft its roughly the size of the wind turbine 300,000 wind turbines that would be close tohalf of the American electricity grid okay so not impossible at all but itÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s you know people saythis is a Manhattan project this is an Apollo project sorry they are science project fusion is aManhattan project or an Apollo project right we want fusion to come true but the rest of this ismore like retooling for World War-II expect the Germans the French the British the Americanand the Japanese are all playing on the same team certainly doable but we have to think a littlemore like that so this is okay I have got all you depressed this is a super optimistic slide all rightso what does this tell you in 1965 the planet was using was able to generate 5 terawatts of powerin 2005 we were able to generate 15 terawatts so in 40 years we install 10 terawatts of generatingcapacity right 10 is not much different to a 11.5 there is precedent it is industrially possible.So there is a note for feeling optimistic okay awesome we can do this but if you are thinking inthe Long Now sense of the word you might want to think ahead because what we are about to dois in fact and indeed pretty awesome so what might what other things you might you considerand this returns to the question of why would you measure things in watts instead of carbonbecause we use watts you can do things like figure out you can translate into land area so howmuch of the planet are we going to use to build this engine to run us so for those particularlyobservant people in the audience you have just noticed that I say that the incoming solar flux tothe earth is 1270 that is wrong I will tell you advance its 1,366 it doesnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t really matter anywaybecause thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s about how much power comes into the upper atmosphere we lose some in theatmosphere due to reflection obviously you lose 50% of it during day and night you lose somewith clouds and with whether you lose some with geography and latitude and globally theaverage power density the solar flux is 90 to 300 watts per square meter and we havephotovoltaic and we have solar thermal and those can have technology efficiencies between 10and 40% itÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s unlikely that we are going to get ever get any of those about 50%.So this is pretty good range and if you take all of that and then you also compensate for the factthat you donÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t when you lay solar cells down you donÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t cover every square inch you covermaybe 15% of land with solar thermal you really only cover 25% because you track so the actualsolar energy influx to electrons gives you about 10 to 20 watts per square meter of land we maydo twice as well but we wonÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t do 10 times as well so keep that in your head 10 to 20 watts persquare meter for wind turbines 100 diameter wind turbine is three megawatts is a capacity factorbecause the wind doesnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t blow all the time thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s typically 33% so a three megawatt wind turbinereally gives you about a megawatt averaged over the year we space those wind turbines 10diameters apart and 10 deep typically sometimes they can be three by eight.So if you take that megawatt that we get and the kilometer square that we have you get about 1watt per square meter may be two watts per square meter of land use hydro electricity I didnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢treally know how to do this numbers so I cheated and I just said whatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s the area of Lake Mead,the feeder to the Hoover Dam itÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s 639 square kilometers Hoover damÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s couple of gigawatts youget about three watts per square meter for hydro electricity thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s a map of the Hoover dam itÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢snot an internal organ just incidentally bio-fuel so if you filled Lake Mead with 3% efficient bio-engineered algae and I mean filled it so you could basically walk on this algal mat, it will stillgive you about two or three watts per square meter so here is Saul's map of the world the landmasses of the world are now square what you can see here this is actually every country in theworld represented as area.So that the largest land area is in fact Russia and you know so thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s it China is in secondactually I have to now recant that because an angry Canadian insulted by my first comment lasttime I gave this talk he said Canada is the second largest country in the world it turns out thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢strue then you know you can see this top six countries Russia, China, Canada, USA, Brazil,Australia they are pretty big in terms of land area so I would like to invent a new country calledRenewistan, Renewistan is 10 terawatts renewable power two terawatts of wind five in solar oneof hydro two by bio-fuels and itÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s about this big so Renewistan it turns out is the 7 largestcountry in the world so what does this say to you it says we're engineering machines that arecountry sized as we endeavor into this clean energy future and you want to probably be verycareful you want to use the most efficient technologies by land area because if you use 2%efficient solar cells instead of 15% efficient solar cells that stripe becomes bigger than Russia forexample so choose carefully there is another way of expressing that so this orange area here thisis the land area of per person in the USA this lighter orange is land area of per person globally atsquare a 140 meters by 140 meters for my personal power consumption if I had those 15% solarcells I need a 41 by 41 meter solar cell to run my personal life that is a lot larger than roof on myhouse.So please install solar cells in the roof of your house itÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s a great idea but just donÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t stop all rightput them on your neighborÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s house put them all over the place paint the streets with them theaverage US citizen is this green one and this is sort of 15ish meter on the side square that is theland area required for the average global citizen all right so you are got to choose carefully yougot to act quickly it is possible and you have to be a little wise and you have to think couple ofsteps ahead or you can make mistakes in this challenge.All right so letÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s come back to putting ourselves in the picture so you now realize that the 18,000watts or 17,000 watts in Saul GriffithÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s life looks a little like extravagant because if everyone inthe world went from 2,500 watts to 18,000 watts suddenly we are not going to need to have justRenewistan we are going to need that 6 or 7 Renewistans all right thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s not going to scale. SoitÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s inevitable that China and India bring their power consumption per-capita up and probablywe shouldnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t begrudge anyone in the less developed nations to do so and that sort of means thatwe have to go down this is what a lot of people talk about when they talk about efficiency mypersonal pet favorite hate is people who stand up and say efficiency is the biggest energy sourcewe know efficiency is not an energy source efficiency is using less energy itÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s a lot more likeabstinence then being energy source.All right so this is my old life so we remembered my old life itÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s you even know how many wattsit takes for my underwear this is my new life so I am going to shoot to be roughly at the globalaverage 2,291 watts how would my life change to do that all right so this is my new route mapmy airline is got to strictly change thing I know get to fly once per year to the east coast returnonce every three years I get to fly to Australia to visit my parents once every five years I get togo it looks like I am flying to France but I think I want to go a little further and go to Italy onceevery ten years I get to go to Hawaii to go surfing that will still be 983 watts grossly half of mypower consumption this is assuming again that I am flying fully loaded 747 I now get to drivequite a lot less 6 times a year I get to drive to Sebastopol in a 55 mile per gallon Honda twice amonth I get to drive the same 55 mile per gallon car to Alameda where I work both times I amgoing to be carpooling once a month I am carpooling in a van with four people to go visit it lookslike Google and then twice a year I get to take my Dune Buggy out to go surfing now obviouslyyou know that I am lying, because those of you know me will know that I will go toSebastopol twice a year to see my in-laws and go surfing 6 times.So this is obviously a lot less driving then circumnavigating the country I now call myself 6/7vegetarian I canÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t kick the habit completely so I tried to eat very good meat once a week insteadof bad meat all the time obviously I am lying when I tell you I only drink one glass of wine anight so this might be the really hard thing to do and the only value in my new lifestyle went upis vegetable use in terms of stuff I just have to own less stuff and make it last ten times as long orsometimes I call this the Rolex and Montblanc pen approach to life. So that just made me soundlike a pretentious wanker. I am really not I am a deep green environmentalist and what you wantis when your child is born or when you are born to be issued with a Rolex and a Montblanc penand thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s the only writing implement the only time piece you get for your whole life. All rightso we solved just now for writing and time reading but how about cell phones.So I think this is actually kind of great challenge right how do you make the first company thatmakes the cell phone that will last a life time totally wins. That will be the most amazing foreveryone in the audience who just got laid off please go and start a company to make a cellphone that lastÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s 100 years that would be the best thing you can do. All right I am not sure whythat slide is there, how that was point about. Oh okay, now this is every business model youneed for the next century pick any piece of that pie do it with 1/10 amount of power or makesomething that will last 10 times longer and you have just done your bit to save the world this iswhen people talk about the green economy you know a quarter of energy we use is just in ourcrap just go after this just take any one of those things and make it a better product. Ironicallywe use to have drinks in the fridge at my energy company called energy drinks they have anutrition label that we use to seeing and ironically we have you know 2000 calorie per day diet iswhat we aim for if you weigh the plastic of the container of that material just assume that thewater in it the sugar comes for free but just the plastic in the bottle and the lid and the celluloseand the label if you weigh those up and you figure out the embodied energy to make that andhow much it would take to refrigerate it and to transport to you if you had a 2000 watt lifestyledrinking one of these per day would be 4Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â½% of your daily value I think you would look at everyproduct you ever consumed extremely differently if we had this labeling on all products I amsure you would choose a glass of wine each day rather than... At least I would.All right so itÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s all possible and we have to think pretty radically different and hence it is prettyobvious that we have to change our lifestyles but we forgot a couple of other things which ispossibly the hardest part of this entire project is going to be to turn off the current carbondioxide emitters so historically when we figure out more efficient ways to do things we just usemore of it so as we bring new power plants online that are renewable the temptation is to leavethe old ones running you just canÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t do that and the other very difficult thing to do is to stopdeforestation so deforestation you know produces 10 to 20% of the CO2 in the atmosphere soyou obviously have to bring a halt to that or the entire project just laid out is sort of lost now hereis a super encouraging slide this is one of the more optimistic ones so this is a graph of theenergy consumption of the US over the last century and it turns out that we have a fantastictechnology for lowering power consumptions and you can see the first experiment in that was theDepression worked great during the oil crises awesome during the recession and then for the sixmonths after September 11 when we didnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t fly very much we also did pretty well.So I am really, really excited to see 2008 and 2009 energy consumption data because I am anumbers nerd and to see how it fits on this map so you can make light of this situation the goodside of a down economy is the using less energy the bad side is as we are attempted to invest lessinto renewable energies and the solutions that we need obviously we should think carefully aboutour priorities and then obviously we also need to think about what happens when we come out ofthis economy right you donÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t want to go straight back to the old work we should use this as thenucleating instance to figure out how to keep the trend going down if we had the sort of thedownwards slope of the 80s recession or the 30s depression starting today that would be roughlythe type and we just sustain that slope that would get us to our target.So we need to figure out how to do that while improving quality of life and thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s to the aestheticquestion in the Montblanc Rolex question so if you are living in this 2,255 watt world you haveto think pretty differently the temptation is I will go and by my 100 mile per gallon equivalentTesla and its all solved. It turns out if you had a 100 mile per gallon car you get to drive that forabout 20 miles per day and that would be 500 of your 2,250 watts 20 miles per day is less thanyou are driving today so the average US person is about 40 miles per day so if you are drivinghalf in a 100 mile per gallon car itÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s still quarter energy so you know that makes you thinktwice about that and is 100 miles per gallon really ambitious enough, this is the CitroÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â«n DeuxChevaux the French President went to Boulanger who was the designer for CitroÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â«n and said in1932 can you design me a car that will carry four peasants to market plus their eggs it has todrive over an unplowed field as to do 60 kilometers an hour and it should get he expressed it 3liters per 100 kilometers.So Boulanger went away and in 1938 returned with this, the Deux Chevaux and indeedthe Deux Chevaux had originally shipped with an 8Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â½ horse power motor and could get 75 milesper gallon so these are 100 miles per gallon target 70 years after that really ambitious enough nowhy was this car efficient it was slow and it was really, really light weight the seats werehammocks, it had a cloth roof and it was dangerous so to that point one of the best thing that wecould to instantly to make it really big dent is to reduce the speed limit and what would youreduce it to 55 was one shot probably you want to go lot further than 55 and it might soundshocking to reduce the speed limit just as the point of note the average speed of travel in any cityin the world of more than a million people in a commute hovers between 9 and 12 miles per hourI suspect if you slow the traffic down you would increase the speed of commuting just becausethere will be less screw ups.So I had an intern this summer I made him drive in circles on a runway and he had to do 100miles at every speed you saw here it turns out the funnier aspect of this story it was three days hehad been there whole summer and just wrote boring code whole summer and he was like a codewriting robot and three days in the summer, I wanted this data point I went and said I wouldreally like you to do something its little ridiculous he says well I had been really hoping that I gotto do something ridiculous you donÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t want to go back to school without a stupid story I said Iwant you to drive in circles for three days he says awesome and he says I learnt to drive stick lastnight which just makes my wife nervous is in the audience because itÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s her car and its stick andanyway so as he bunny hopped out of the driveway yeah so we had to remove the first few datapoints, anyway so the optimum speed to drive this particular car is about 30 miles per hour andyou get 85ish miles per gallon.So I think lowering the speed limit thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s a point there or do this even better do this I thinkelectric motor scooters thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s the other thing if you are not making cell phones that last 100 yearsplease make electric motor scooters all right so you might ask me okay Saul for a year now youhave known all this data and you are trying to reduce the power consumption in your life howdid you do? Well I did about 17 or 18,000 watts of power in 2007 I think this year I will useabout 12,000 and my life has only improved so far so I am eating less and definitely morehealthfully. I am exercising more doing more commuting by bicycle I am spending more timewith my family by traveling less finding that living closer together with your friends and workpeople certainly helps I am doing a lot less business travel which is great business travel actuallysucks higher quality better design products itÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s a really nice filter on your purchasing consumerself to just say I will only buy good things because you canÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t afford many and so thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s totallyworking for me less junk in my house the house is clean because there is less crap and you knowhopefully if we are all doing this we are breathing cleaner air and drinking cleaner water.So I think there is a reasonable argument to say that we can have much higher quality lives whilewe sort of hit the goals we want here the one thing I didnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t mention here is I could have reallyreduced my power consumption for 2008 by another three or four thousand watts if I stop payingtaxes now who knows how well we you know the US Government apportions the tax dollars butI suspect if I were running the show I wouldnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t spend the power on behalf of the citizens as it isnow and its fairly serious point that we actually should be lobbying government to use the powerthat it uses on our behalf a lot better than it actually does and roughly imagine what portion ofyour salary that you pay in taxes thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s grossly the portion of the energy that the governmentdecides on your behalf so finish with the obligatory photo of the world oh okay now thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s later.All right so thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s it and I guess there is going to be hard questions thank you, oh actually I havecalled you up here too soon. You can stay around. So everyone is probably wondering why onearth did Saul bring his IV drip, so this is to illustrate a point a lot of the math that we put intomaking this presentation there is a fantastic guy called Raffi Krikorian and his crew at SynthesisStudios in Boston they have turned that into a website called Wattzon.com and you can gothrough and enter in your data itÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s like a carbon calculator on steroids except it uses energy andonce you figured out how much power you use and I am up to 18,000 watts you can say forexample visualize for me you can do me versus light bulbs or how big is my personal windturbine or how big is my solar panel but I happen to like the one you versus oil and if you look atmy life if oil and in pints per day I am in bad I am in 90 points of oil per day person so this usedto be a pint of oil imagine that is full 90 pints a day basically means that I am using one ofthese every 15 minutes to support my life all right so the average American is using one of theseevery 20 something minutes to support their life so I think when you reduce it to these terms youremove the invisibility of you know we donÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t typically see how energy is produced or used but ifyou imagine it this way, you really get visceral feeling for just how quickly your addiction is. Ithink the joke here is this is jammed and my arteries are finally clogged with oil anyway soStewart.